Thoughts on Thor: The Dark World (2013)

Image courtesy of wallpapercave.com

The next movie in the "Marvel-thon" is the follow-up to the last present-day Phase One solo movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and that is Thor: The Dark World.

It has been two years since the events of the first Thor, and Loki has been jailed for his involvement in the Battle of New York. Thor and his friends are working to bring peace to the Nine Realms, and it is during their latest battle where they learn that the Convergence, an event that aligns the Nine Realms, is coming again. Portals begin appearing out of nowhere, including one in London where Jane Foster and company are. After Jane comes in contact with an ancient weapon known as the Aether, Thor brings her to Asgard. This reawakens Malekith and his Dark Elves, who seek to use the Aether during the Convergence and destroy all Nine Realms at once.

What Worked: Most of the returning cast are really good. Chris Hemsworth continues to be excellent as Thor, as does Tom Hiddleston as Loki, who is more of an antihero this time around because he still finds ways to irritate Thor. The same also goes for Anthony Hopkins as Odin, showing here that he can be very apprehensive about bringing outsiders into his home. The Warriors Three still get some good moments, and even Jaimie Alexander as Lady Sif gets some of her own, as does Idris Elba as Heimdall.

The action is better here than it was in the first one, and as a result, it's paced better. The tone is more consistent here. While there are scenes that take place on Earth, more take place on Asgard this time, and even some on other realms here and there. The Earth scenes feel more important here.

The effects look better here, as well as the appearances of the Dark Elves.

The direction by Alan Taylor, who replaces Kenneth Branagh from the first one, is pretty good. It shows that he's accustomed to doing a fantasy setting, as he's worked on Game of Thrones.

What Didn't Work: First of all, the Earth characters, while their performances are still good, don't have much significance other than Jane. Of course, Darcy, played by Kat Dennings, may have come across as annoying in the first one, and she may even more so here for those who didn't like her in the first one. She didn't bother me too much in either case, but it's still worth addressing.

The score by Brian Tyler (who previously scored Iron Man 3) is decent, but for the most part, not all that memorable, aside from one track in the middle of the movie. It comes after a significant event happens, which if I delve into it, would be a huge spoiler.

Much like Iron Man 3, this also has a problem with the villains. Malekith, played by Christopher Eccleston, is the main villain here, and while he does have a purpose, the only real significance involving him is the object he's after, which becomes very important (only much, much later). He ends up being kind of a forgettable villain. His performance is fine, but the character should have been developed better. I will give him this: how the movie gives him the appearance his face has in the comics was a nice touch.

Aside from that, when the main villain's lieutenant is more interesting than him, there's a problem. His lieutenant comes in the form of Algrim / Kurse. The best way I can describe him is this: look out for a creature that looks like the Predator. He's a more interesting character because he is sent to go after Thor physically, and when he becomes Kurse, he does inflict quite a bit of damage.

Even with the balance of one forgettable villain and one interesting villain, in the grand scheme of things, they don't leave much of an impact other than what they're after.

Overall: Thor: The Dark World is one of the weaker movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, like Iron Man 3. It's basically in the territory of "good, but not great." Both movies have their moments, but this one has an edge over Iron Man 3 because its plot centers around something that becomes important later, so keep that in mind. This is especially true when you get to the mid-credits scene*, which ties back to that object and sets up a character who gets his time to shine two movies from now.

Also, it does have a better post-credits scene than Iron Man 3 did because it also ties into part of this movie in an amusing way. It still could have been stronger, but it is better than that one. (And yes, there is "that cameo.")

After two still decent movies, Phase Two does get better from here, starting with the next movie.

*That's right, it's like The Avengers; it has both a mid-credits scene and a post-credits scene.

Thoughts on Iron Man 3 (2013)

Image courtesy of wallpapercave.com

Phase Two of the Marvel Cinematic Universe begins with the next movie in the "Marvel-thon": Iron Man 3.

Some time has passed since the Battle of New York, and Tony Stark has never been the same. He can't sleep, he's been constantly building new Iron Man suits, and to make matters worse, the events of that day (one in particular) have caused him to suffer panic attacks. His problems don't stop there: a series of bombings, courtesy of the Mandarin (leader of the Ten Rings terrorist group*), has left evidence untraceable for the government, but not for Tony. This ultimately leads Tony to a conspiracy where perhaps these bombings, and the man behind them, are something more.

What Worked: The first thing to talk about is the cast. Robert Downey Jr. continues to be excellent as Tony Stark. Here, what he's going through brings about a different side to Tony. At some times, he's the Tony Stark that everyone knows and loves, and then at other times, he'll be the Tony Stark that's facing enormous amounts of pressure. The balance between the two works very well.

Gwyneth Paltrow is still really good as Pepper Potts, and she shows that she is concerned for Tony, perhaps even more so than in the first movie.

Don Cheadle returns as Rhodey, who has a new armor in this movie: the Iron Patriot. The relationship he has with Tony is given an interesting new dynamic here, having a "buddy-cop movie" feel to it in a few moments. It shows through their banter and even through providing some moments of action for him.

The other returning characters are Jon Favreau as Happy Hogan and Paul Bettany as the voice of J.A.R.V.I.S. Jon Favreau is just playing Happy this time around; he didn't also direct this one. While he's not in the movie that much, there's a reason for that which also ties into Tony going on the warpath to find the Mandarin, but going into what that reason is would likely be a spoiler. As for Paul Bettany, he's still good as J.A.R.V.I.S., but he's more of a supporting character here, considering how sometimes Tony doesn't even need to be in a suit to control it.

Then there are the new characters: Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian, Rebecca Hall as Maya Hansen, and Ben Kingsley as someone significant to the plot (revealing his name would potentially be a huge spoiler). Guy Pearce is very good here; at first, he seems like a nice guy, but there comes a point where you can tell he's bad news. Rebecca Hall is good as Maya Hansen, a scientist who works with Killian on experiments with her technology. She really sells that she has good intentions that may have consequences. As for Ben Kingsley, I'll mention him in a little bit.

For the other positives, the first is the direction by Shane Black. I previously mentioned the "buddy-cop movie" feel in some parts of this, and he's known for applying that to his work, having written the script for Lethal Weapon and directing Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, which also had Robert Downey Jr., and, following this, The Nice Guys. His skill with that genre shows in those particular parts of this.

Another positive is the story. It's more concise here than it was in Iron Man 2. It's more straightforward: the Battle of New York affected Tony, and the pressure mounts when new threats emerge. It leaves him at his most vulnerable because his past comes back to haunt him in several ways. The structure is also better here. The first half is especially really good, because it feels like it's keeping with the tone of the previous two movies. The third act follows up on that by going all-out and delivering a payoff for certain plot points established early on in the movie.

The action sequences are very tense, and there are three standouts, one being the finale. It does follow "that rule," in other words.

The score by Brian Tyler is pretty good, but the standout in regards to the music for me is a song played in the opening as the Marvel Studios logo is coming up. Those who grew up in the 90s like myself will be blown away by the use of that song, as if the fact that the movie opens differently from other MCU movies didn't catch them off guard enough.

The effects, as always, are great here, especially in the third act, since they help serve the purpose of that third act.

What Didn't Work: There are a fair amount of problems here. I will get the biggest one out of the way first, which is one a lot of people have: there's a big reveal involving Ben Kingsley's character that is ultimately very polarizing. Some people love it, and some people hate it. I'm mixed on it, because I get what they were trying to do with it and appreciate the effort. At the same time, if it kept to the tone of the previous two movies (and the first half of this one) which were building up to something big, or at least took its execution and switched it, then the whole movie could have been on par with the first one, if not better. Plus, the conspiracy aspect would have been done better.

Considering Shane Black's direction, another thing he's known for is having quite a bit of humor. The problem with that is in the script. Sometimes, it feels like it's trying to be more of a comedy and less of a superhero movie. On occasion, even the effects are used for the purpose of a joke. It would have worked better if it were dialed back a bit or perhaps kept to a minimum and used when necessary.

I also mentioned how the action does follow a certain rule, but the problem with it here is that the transition from one sequence to the next does not feel as smooth as it did in the first one.

The biggest problem aside from the reveal results from the amount of humor and structure of the action: the tone, the same main issue I had with Thor. It's basically done the same way; it's compelling in some parts, and comedic in others. It even affects the pacing, but to a much more severe degree here. The entire first half is really good, but then it halts right in the middle of the movie before picking back up in the third act, whereas with Thor, that happened when it would go back and forth between the settings.

Overall: Iron Man 3 is like the second one where it still has its moments, although the first one remains the best of the three. However, it does get closer to being at least as good as the first one. It just has a few things holding it back. It could have been a stronger movie had it developed the villains more. With that issue being present here, it unfortunately begins the villain problem the MCU would have in several later movies. At the same time, though, it feels like further developing the hero is sometimes meant to take precedence over having a good villain, even if that means the threat they are currently dealing with may not be as impactful as a previous one.

Speaking of not as impactful, there is an additional issue here: this does contain one of the MCU's weaker post-credits scenes... and yes, where there's a post-credits scene, there is a Stan Lee cameo.

*That is one of several nods to the first movie; there was one in the second movie as well that foreshadowed the first big action sequence there.

Thoughts on The Avengers (2012)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

The next installment in the "Marvel-thon" is the conclusion to Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the one built up over the course of five movies, the one that for the longest time I thought I had found my definitive all-time favorite movie upon seeing it in theaters, and that is... The Avengers.

While experimenting with the Tesseract, S.H.I.E.L.D. is attacked by Loki, who then takes control of several characters, a couple of which were introduced two movies ago in Thor. As a result, S.H.I.E.L.D. Director Nick Fury declares that they are at war, and that the "Avengers Initiative" is now in effect. This means he, along with Agents Romanoff and Coulson, must recruit Steve Rogers, Bruce Banner, and Tony Stark to their cause.

What Worked: I would say everything, and for the vast majority of it, it does. Now let’s get into why.

Of course, the cast is where it starts. First is Robert Downey Jr. once again playing Tony Stark / Iron Man. If either of his two solo movies so far didn't prove that he's a prime example of perfect casting (especially the first one), this movie certainly did. For example, in a callback to Iron Man 2, he mentions that one of his personality traits is that he doesn't play well with others. When watching this movie, he evolves as a character to where it seems like that at first, but by the big battle at the end, he somewhat does. Even so, he still has his moments of conflict with other team members here and there. As for when he's Iron Man, he's always awesome, and he gets a new suit here. The way it comes to him is one of many, many highlights to be found here.

Then there's Chris Evans as Steve Rogers / Captain America. He still shows his patriotic side and leadership skills here. He also has to show how Cap is adjusting to our time, like when someone references a certain movie that was out during his time, he responds with, "I understood that reference." Needless to say, he nails it. It's even established that he's had a bit of an impact on at least one other character.

The next one to talk about before going back to returning cast members is this: Much like with the part of Rhodey going from Terrence Howard to Don Cheadle in the first two Iron Man movies, there's been a recasting here. This time, it's with Bruce Banner / Hulk. He was portrayed by Edward Norton in The Incredible Hulk, but, for reasons similar to Terrence Howard, was recast with Mark Ruffalo. Ironically, he was considered for that movie, and then ended up getting the part anyway here. Despite Norton doing an incredible job last time*, Ruffalo is actually even better. His version of Bruce Banner is actually more charismatic and laid back, and there's a reason for that here. Not only does he play Banner, he physically plays the Hulk, which is why his face actually looks like the actor playing Banner this time.

Now back to the returning cast members. Chris Hemsworth returns as Thor, and evidenced by the plot of this movie, he has a legitimate reason for coming back to Earth: his brother is the one causing the problem. Some of the conflict with other members not caused by Tony stems from that. At first, he simply wants to find Loki and the Tesseract and go home, but by the end he is used to working with others, and it does feel like he's started to bond with them. Hemsworth has managed to take the part and make it his own, showing that he is Thor.

Then there is Scarlett Johansson returning as Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow, neither name I could reveal in the Iron Man 2 review because then it would have been a huge spoiler, but this time it seems fine to say it. She shows that she is very resourceful, despite having gadgets in place of superpowers, and of course can hold her own in a fight.

Then there is Jeremy Renner as Clint Barton / Hawkeye, which I could not mention in the Thor review because he was only in one scene. Here, like Black Widow, he has gadgets, namely in his bow and his arrows, and he does get some awesome moments. The two of them also get some banter in there.

Before I get to Loki, there is one last character to talk about here, and that is another prime example of perfect casting: Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. Much like with Robert Downey Jr., it feels like his role was made for him. You don't just see an actor playing a character; you feel like you're seeing their character. Yes, even he gets some good moments in here.

Lastly, there is Loki, played by Tom Hiddleston. He is another example of a great casting choice; Hiddleston shows that Loki is full of himself, and does not anticipate when things don't go his way. While in Thor, he proved to be a legitimate threat on his own, that was just the beginning. With an army of Chitauri, the threat escalates. He knows it, and it's not long before the Avengers know it.

For the action, I would mention a certain rule here, but there's so much of it that in the end, does it even matter? You'll probably lose count anyway. The effects are also amazing** here, but that's to be expected. Then there's the script and direction by Joss Whedon, and he ends up being another excellent pick for a Marvel movie. The reason for that is he can take a bunch of characters and give each of them enough screen time to where they're relevant. He's also very good at humor, as there are some subtle references, like to other films.

The biggest positive for me is actually the music. Alan Silvestri returns as composer from Captain America: The First Avenger. For those who have read the Predator review, I mentioned that two of his movie themes are among my favorites, the main theme to that being one of them. I can finally reveal the other one, and that is the main theme to this movie. It comes up several times, and its use in the credits is what solidified it for me. Much like with Predator, the excellent score is not the only music here, either. The difference here is that there is a soundtrack, the main song being "Live to Rise" by Soundgarden, making this one of two awesome movies the late Chris Cornell would be associated with.

What Didn't Work: There are more cast members, like Cobie Smulders as Agent Maria Hill (a new character), but the reason why I didn't mention them is a similar reason from the Captain America: The First Avenger review. Their performances are still excellent, but they're not in the movie that much. Also, there is a certain character that kind of gets the short end of the stick for most of the movie, but there is a reason for it. However, these are nitpicks, and ones that I am more than willing to overlook at that.

Overall: The Avengers is everything one could want in a superhero movie, and then some. It does something never thought possible before: take the heroes developed over the course of five movies, put them together, balance them to where one's screen time does not overshadow everyone else's, and make them even more relevant to the extent that several characters from past movies make at least a cameo. It sets a bar for not only how to do a cinematic universe, but also for how to do it right.

In the intro, I mentioned that for the longest time I thought I had found my definitive all-time favorite movie upon seeing it in theaters. As time went on, I realized it wasn't my definitive all-time favorite movie... but rather part of it. That's right; the Marvel Cinematic Universe is not just my favorite franchise, but I consider it all one movie because of how it all comes together in ways that make sense.

Of course, expect a Stan Lee cameo (watch very closely for this one), and there is not just a post-credits scene. There is also a mid-credits scene that sets up something bigger than it took five movies alone for this one. It's taking all of them to set that up.

*No pun intended... or was it? (When talking about the action, the same goes for that reference.)

**I'll get to that character's movie soon.

Thoughts on Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Image courtesy of wallpapercave.com

Next up is another introductory movie, this time for the leader of the Avengers... Captain America: The First Avenger.

While wanting to enlist in the Army so he can join his best friend James Buchanan "Bucky" Barnes, Steve Rogers is unfortunately rejected 5 times due to concerns for his health and physicality. However, a scientist named Dr. Abraham Erskine is willing to help him. He recruits Rogers in an experiment that will give him the strength and stature of a soldier. Meanwhile, HYDRA, the Nazi science division led by Johann Schmidt, are in possession of an ancient relic known as the Tesseract, which can turn the tides of the war in their favor. It's up to Steve Rogers, now known as Captain America, his love interest Agent Peggy Carter, Bucky, and a small group of soldiers known as the "Howling Commandos," to stop them.

What Worked: As always, the cast comes first. In what had perhaps become a custom for Marvel at this point, this movie also has some brilliant casting choices. This will actually start with the one that so many people were skeptical about: Chris Evans as Captain America. One of the main reasons why is because he had played a superhero before; in the Tim Story-directed Fantastic Four films, he was the Human Torch. Even if he was one of the highlights of those two movies, he still makes a better Captain America. He shows that Cap is a good soldier and overall a good man because he is dedicated to protecting his country and its people.

Another great casting choice here is Tommy Lee Jones as Col. Chester Phillips, the head of the "Super-Soldier" Project. He brings the commanding personality he had in films like The Fugitive over into this, and it works perfectly. Then there is Hayley Atwell as Peggy, an agent of the Strategic Scientific Reserve who also takes part in that project, later becoming Cap's love interest. She is another female character who can handle herself in a fight and look good doing it, and it shows in her performance. She even looks like a woman from that time.

Someone else who looks like they could be from that time is Dominic Cooper, playing a young Howard Stark (Tony's father). His personality and skill you can tell Tony would inherit from him. Even his relationship with Cap would become significant in Cap's eventual relationship with Tony.

Now for the best villain casting so far: Hugo Weaving as Johann Schmidt. Short version: whenever he's a villain, he's awesome. For evidence of that, go watch the Matrix trilogy. When he's a good guy, he's not too bad, either, but he's one of those actors where you get used to seeing him as a villain more. Here, his performance brings to life one of the MCU's more underrated villains.

Then there are four standouts here in regards to the technical aspects. The first is the direction by Joe Johnston, who has previous experience doing a period piece akin to this one with The Rocketeer. He also has experience working on films heavy on effects, like Jurassic Park III. Since this is a period piece (set during World War II, much like Cap's story in the comics), his experience shows. The second standout is the score by Alan Silvestri. It has that patriotic feel to it; the theme is also really good. The third is the tone. It is consistent, and it also comes across more like Indiana Jones mixed with James Bond than a period piece. The fourth standout has two parts: production design and visuals. The production design feels like the 40s, and the visuals appear as if they could be considered modern during that time, like how Cap's shield is introduced. This is mainly because the surrounding story makes sense, which allows for those to also make sense.

What Didn't Work: There were some cast members I didn't mention, like Sebastian Stan as Bucky, Stanley Tucci as Dr. Erskine, Toby Jones as Schmidt's assistant Dr. Arnim Zola, and the actors who play the Howling Commandos. The performances are still good, but most of those characters don't have much significance to the story here outside of when they're needed. Some of them become more significant in a later movie. While the effects are overall really good, there are some that might not hold up well.

Overall: When it comes to the movies that make up Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Captain America: The First Avenger is the best solo movie since Iron Man. It even has parallels to Iron Man at points. It has the best villain so far aside from Loki. This is a rare case where using perhaps the hero's most iconic enemy in the first movie actually makes sense. The reason for that is because each Captain America movie would prove to be better than the previous one, and so would the villains.

The action would also get better, because this has really good sequences, but the best has yet to come there. However, if there is one thing this movie shows most, it's that Marvel knows the best ways to approach certain characters. It's actually for the best that the leader was set up last because the audience knows the other team members connect to his story. Seeing his story last shows them how, which makes them want to see everyone assemble even more.

As usual, a certain cameo and a post-credits scene are present here.

Thoughts on Thor (2011)

Image courtesy of getwallpapers.com

The next movie in the "Marvel-thon" is the introduction of the character that also had the most recent entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe at the time of this writing: Thor.

Just when Thor is about to be sworn in as King by his father Odin, their home world of Asgard is attacked by Frost Giants from the realm of Jotunheim seeking to reclaim a relic from the vault. Thor believes they should pay for this, and decides to retaliate. After his plan goes horribly wrong and Odin intervenes, his power is taken from him and he is exiled to Earth (or "Midgard," as they call it) to learn humility.

What Worked: This has three examples of perfect casting in it: Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Tom Hiddleston as his brother Loki, and Sir Anthony Hopkins as Odin. As with Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man, they look and act like their characters. Even the supporting cast is really good for the most part. There's Idris Elba (Prometheus) as Heimdall the gatekeeper, Rene Russo as Odin's wife Frigga, Jaimie Alexander as Thor's friend Sif, etc.

This is actually a case where the choice of director was perfect as well. Here, the director is Kenneth Branagh, a name that might sound very familiar from the review prior to Iron Man. The only difference is here, he's not also starring in the movie. The reason why having him direct this was a perfect choice is because he has experience with Shakespearean material, and the comics are like that, particularly with the dialogue. The movie doesn't necessarily have that in regards to the dialogue, but rather the look and feel of it, at least with the parts on Asgard.

The effects are also really good, examples being the makeup on the Frost Giants and the production design of Asgard itself. One visual that is really nice is the Destroyer; you'll know when you see it. Speaking of the Destroyer, there is a very brief reference when it first shows up to something that is addressed in Ragnarok. If you miss it, you can look it up later.

There is humor here, and for the most part, it works.

Also, for those who remember the mention of a sub-plot from the Iron Man review involving Pepper and another character, his significance basically starts here, so I might as well say it. It's Agent Phil Coulson of S.H.I.E.L.D., played by Clark Gregg. He's kind of like an Agent from Men in Black, and whenever he's appeared in these films so far, he has provided some humor here and there. The significance of another character starts here, but it's in the form of a cameo, so I won't spoil it.

What Didn't Work: In regards to the characters Thor meets on Earth (namely Jane Foster, her assistant Darcy Lewis, and Dr. Erik Selvig, who works with them, played by Natalie Portman, Kat Dennings, and Stellan Skarsgård, respectively), the performances were fine. The characters themselves could have been written better, though. Selvig is probably the more interesting one of the three. Jane Foster, an important aspect of Thor's story in Marvel, feels somewhat miscast with Natalie Portman, even if she did fine. While I didn't mind Kat Dennings as Darcy, who along with Selvig is a character made up for the movie, I can totally understand people who think she's annoying (like Jar Jar annoying*). Some of the humor comes from her, and I can also understand those who think some of it falls flat.

The action is also good, but some of it is dark, and in those scenes in particular, there might be a little bit of shaky cam.

The biggest problem, though, is the tone. It's more compelling in the Asgard parts, and then when it cuts back to the events on Earth, it feels more comedic, save for part of the third act. The pacing is also affected because of it.

Overall: Thor is a good introductory movie for a signature member of an iconic superhero team. It's not the best one (so far, Iron Man still takes the cake), but it's still good. Plus, it has a great villain in Loki, who leaves the most impact out of all the villains so far in this series, because he comes into play again very soon. It's also one of those Marvel movies that shows how they are capable of going into certain territories that might have previously been impossible, like mythological in this case, and it would be further proven in future installments in the MCU.

As always, expect a certain cameo and a post-credits scene, which hints at both the next movie and the one following it at the same time.

*Don't worry... I'll get to that series soon enough.

Thoughts on Iron Man 2 (2010)

Image courtesy of wallpaperaccess.com 

Next in the "Marvel-thon" is the first sequel in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and that is Iron Man 2.

It has been six months since what happened at the end of the first film (before the post-credits scene). The government believes Tony Stark's Iron Man suit is a weapon rather than a peacekeeper, for which Tony has been using it. Thus, they have been requesting for some time that he hand it over. Not only that, the element powering the core of the arc reactor in his chest is slowly killing him. To make matters even worse, someone who has history with his family is on a path of revenge.

What Worked: The performances are still really good. Robert Downey Jr. again embodies Tony Stark. Something in the first one carries over into this one: his occasional vulnerability (which actually was not mentioned in that review). He shows it even more so here, for obvious reasons. It's exploited in several ways, but I can really only mention one here, as at least a few of them could be reaching spoiler territory.

Something I did mention in the review of the first one (briefly) was the recasting of Rhodey, Tony's best friend. He was portrayed by Terrence Howard there, and while I thought he was really good, I also thought he wasn't quite as charismatic as Tony was, and especially not as much as the character himself would become. That aspect of him starts here, as the role was recast with Don Cheadle. He's more levelheaded, like Pepper, where he vouches for Tony whenever he can, but sometimes has to get in the way in order to bring him back to reality. He's also more likable here because of both that and the sense of humor that Cheadle brings to him.

Speaking of Pepper, Gwyneth Paltrow is another returning cast member. Like Rhodey in this movie, she also has to deal with a certain amount of pressure, which allows for some character development. There are some scenes where she shows concern for Tony, which additionally contributes to that.

The only other returning cast members that can be discussed here are Paul Bettany as J.A.R.V.I.S. and Jon Favreau (returning to direct) as Happy Hogan. They are still really good here, and are given more to do.

For the new characters, Scarlett Johansson is a character whose significance is revealed by the third act. She's one of the highlights when it comes to the new characters. Sam Rockwell plays Justin Hammer, a business rival of Tony. For a supporting villain, who is also the "anti-Tony Stark," his performance is good.

The main villain here is Ivan Vanko, played by Mickey Rourke. He is also a highlight for two reasons: 1: his involvement in the first major action scene, and 2: the scene that follows it. That scene, for me, is his best scene in the movie. He mentions his motive there; he wanted to show that Iron Man can be vulnerable, and before the scene ends, he mentions that he knows Tony is. Some of the other characters know it, too, but at different points in the movie.

The story, for the most part, works. It involves the repercussions of what happened in the previous film, and how everyone goes about trying to address them while having other conflicts along the way.

There is more action here, and it does follow the "Rule of Threes," but to a bit of a lesser extent, because there's the first major action scene, a fight that lasts maybe a couple minutes, and then basically the entire third act. Even so, it does follow it.

The effects are still great here. The suits look even better. There are also other designs that are shown (and sometimes used) throughout the movie that look very good.

What Didn't Work: Unlike the first one, this one does have a fair amount of problems, even though I do still like this one. One of the biggest problems is that it doesn't primarily feel like its own story like the first one did. It does what the reboot of The Mummy would ultimately do: focus on setting up something bigger. The only difference is that here, there was at least precedence for that with the post-credits scene in the first film. However, despite that, it still feels like half the movie focuses on that. There are even at least two characters (one being introduced here) that are part of that "something bigger."

There are also several sub-plots, which don't completely connect significantly to the main story. The main thing they have in common is that they all provide conflict, just from different perspectives. If it had been written better, this could have worked better. This is especially true of developing the new characters, examples being Ivan Vanko and Justin Hammer. While Sam Rockwell was good performance-wise, the problem is his character, Justin Hammer, feels more like a main villain than the actual one, Ivan Vanko.

It also feels like it relies a little too much on humor at times. It's not the fault of Jon Favreau's direction, which is still good here (but not as good as with the first one), but rather weaknesses in the script. The script is okay, but you can tell that the first one was more tightly written and even paced better.

Overall: Iron Man 2 is not as good as the first movie, but it is still fun to watch, even with the problems it has. It does a decent job at developing returning characters and setting up new ones. It has an interesting main villain with an understandable motive, and great action. While I do think the first one may be the better movie, this one has its share of good moments as well.

Of course, expect a Stan Lee cameo and a post-credits scene.

Thoughts on The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

Continuing with the "Marvel-thon" is the movie that not only followed Iron Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it did so by even following it to theaters a month later. That movie is The Incredible Hulk, the second big-screen adaptation of the Hulk after the 2003 version*.

After exposing himself to gamma radiation, Dr. Bruce Banner is on the run from the military in search of a cure for his condition: you won't like him when he's angry. Although he is close to ridding himself of the Hulk, the military seek to use it as a weapon. In his search, he finds his old girlfriend Betty Ross and needs her help. Unfortunately, the leader of her father's team not only wants Banner... he wants what's inside him.

Before I get started with my positives, I'm going to try to not compare this version and the 2003 one here, and save it for when I eventually get around to reviewing that. This one has precedence for a reason mentioned in the Iron Man review. Now let’s get to the positives.

What Worked: The cast is really good. Edward Norton is believable as Bruce Banner, displaying his sense of urgency and desperation quite well. The same goes for the physicality and ferocity of the Hulk.

Then there is Liv Tyler (The Lord of the Rings, Armageddon) as Betty Ross, who genuinely cares for him, and it's easy to tell that the emotion is there. William Hurt, another good choice, plays her father, General Thaddeus “Thunderbolt” Ross. He's very forceful and physical, and feels like a general type of character.

There are a couple other characters to mention: Tim Blake Nelson as Samuel Sterns, who works with Betty, and Tim Roth as Emil Blonsky, the leader of General Ross's team. Nelson is very good here, playing an eccentric scientist who's more than willing to help after meeting Bruce. As for Roth, much like Jeff Bridges in Iron Man, he makes for a great villain. Similar to that, the name for his character's alter ego is foreshadowed at one point, but there are two differences here: 1: it's not him who does it, and 2: it's mentioned shortly before he becomes that villain.

For the technical aspects, the direction is actually pretty good. The director here is Louis Leterrier, a French director who has done several films I find underrated: the first two Transporter films with Jason Statham (2 being my favorite) and Now You See Me, which was a surprise for me that year. For a superhero film, he does a solid job. You can tell he's giving not only fans of the character what they want, but also fans of the 70s TV show, as there are quite a few references to it (examples being the use of "The Lonely Man" theme within the score, and at least one use of Lou Ferrigno). The score fits the tone: it's tense and exciting when it needs to be.

The visuals for the Hulk are really good, because he looks and feels like how one may picture him. The same goes for the villain, who looks different than he does in the comics, but it distinguishes him from the Hulk more here and the changes to his abilities make sense. Out of all of the MCU's villains, he is ultimately an underrated one.

The biggest positive here is the action. Again, it follows the "Rule of Threes," where every sequence must get bigger and better. Compared to Iron Man, it's not until at least the second one where you begin to realize that, whereas there, you could tell right away. The finale is not only the biggest action sequence here, but it's also the best one. It gets brutal at times. There's even a reference to a popular Hulk video game at one point.

What Didn't Work: While Liv Tyler is very good as Betty Ross, and she does show emotion, there are a couple times where it seems like it's there a little too much. Those parts are near the end, though, and one in particular that just doesn't work you'll know when you see it. Also, when Tim Roth is slowly becoming the villain, it's not as subtle as it was with Jeff Bridges in Iron Man.

Overall: The Incredible Hulk, while not one of the best MCU films, nor the best that features the Hulk (that comes later), is one that a lot of fans are likely to overlook when talking about their favorites in the franchise. Be they fans of the franchise itself, fans with a sense of nostalgia for the show, or otherwise, they get what they want: a Hulk movie that just lets him loose to smash anything and everything in his way. For some, it may even feel like an episode of the show that features an actual villain from the comics. Either way, there is plenty of fan service here.

Side Note: While it is a staple of MCU films for there to be a mid-credits scene, a post-credits scene, or both, this one has neither, as the final scene is basically what would have served as one. Another staple of them is to have a Stan Lee cameo, so one can be expected here as well.

*There are very loose connections to it here (an example being how he's in the same location at the end of that version and the start of this one); aside from that, this version continues the formula set forth by Iron Man.

Thoughts on Iron Man (2008)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

This post will be bringing back the "consecutive coverage"* format, only it won't just be a trilogy like last time. It'll be much more than that, for I have decided to cover every single installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, including Thor: Ragnarok, the latest at the time of this writing. While the franchise has expanded into comic book tie-ins, short films, and shows, I will strictly focus on the movies for both consistency purposes and the fact that they're easier to discuss without having to delve into heavy spoilers.

With that being said, time to start what I call the "Marvel-thon"** with the one that started it all: Iron Man.

After demonstrating a missile called "Jericho" for the troops in Afghanistan, billionaire industrialist and weapons manufacturer Tony Stark and his convoy are ambushed. The attack leaves the troops dead and Tony wounded by one of his own designs. A terrorist group known as the Ten Rings captures him, but keep him alive because they want him to build the missile. Instead, he discreetly builds a suit of armor that allows him to escape. He has a change of heart upon his return to America, and decides manufacturing weapons does more harm than good, wanting to redeem himself by protecting the people he put in harm's way.

What Worked: The cast is brilliant. Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark is a prime example of perfect casting. He looks and acts like Tony as seen in the comics, displaying his arrogance and how he does what he feels is right, even if his method isn't. He adds a sense of humor to Tony, which makes him more likable throughout the movie.

For the supporting cast, there is Terrence Howard as Lt. Col. James Rhodes (AKA "Rhodey"), Tony's best friend. For what would be his only time in the role, he is really good. However, he is not quite as charismatic as Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal of Tony, let alone as much as Rhodey would become later on with Don Cheadle.

Then there is the love interest and Tony's assistant, Pepper Potts, played by Gwyneth Paltrow. As with Tony, she looks and acts the part, showing how intelligent the character is. In fact, when his methods don't work, she's one of the first to make him realize that, thus bringing him down to her level. In being the love interest, she's actually not the damsel-in-distress type one would come to expect in a superhero movie. There is also a sub-plot between her and another character that becomes important later.

A superhero movie is not complete without an interesting villain. That's where Jeff Bridges comes in, playing Obadiah Stane, Tony's business partner and mentor. He may seem like the "nice guy" type at first, but about halfway through, you can tell he is bad news. He even foreshadows the name of his character's alter ego at one point. Jeff Bridges actually makes for a menacing villain, especially in the third act.

There are two more I can mention here without going too deep into spoilers. One of them is Jon Favreau, who also directed, as Happy Hogan, Tony's bodyguard. He can be pretty funny at times. The other is Paul Bettany as the voice of the AI, J.A.R.V.I.S., who serves as his butler-like advisor when he controls the systems in his mansion and his upgraded suits. He also shows concern for Tony and his actions. Even though he is just doing voiceover work, Paul Bettany conveys those qualities perfectly.

With the technical aspects, Jon Favreau's direction is excellent. For some, it may even feel as if someone with more experience in blockbusters had directed it, particularly through the visual effects. Here, the visuals for Iron Man himself were a mix of both practical effects done by Stan Winston (who I mentioned in the Predator review) and then digital. The suits look mostly practical, so it looks like you are actually seeing a character.

The score is also really good because not only does it sound awesome, but it's also one of those scores that allow for audience excitement, with Predator being a great example. It even helps the story move along at a solid pace. The action contributes to that because it follows what is known as "The Rule of Threes," where every action sequence must be bigger and better than the last one to keep the audience invested.

What Didn't Work: The fight at the end may seem short, but there are two reasons for that: 1: its length makes sense, and 2: it's set up very well. Therefore, it's more of a nitpick.

Overall: Iron Man is an excellent superhero movie, as well as a great action movie. It has a likable hero with an origin story that is not only faithfully brought to the big screen, but can also stand on its own in addition to starting something special. It may have begun the cinematic universe craze, but this is one of two movies that managed to be successful in building their franchises up. It feels like its own story first and foremost, and because the main story works, the franchise setup feels earned.

Speaking of franchise setup, the primary aspect of that is in the form of a post-credits scene. Also, look out for a fair amount of references (including a particular song in the credits), and of course, a Stan Lee cameo (if you've seen at least one Marvel movie, MCU or otherwise, you can probably expect that more often than not).

*I realize I might need a catchier name.

**Like that one.

Thoughts on Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

After solving a case in Jerusalem, Detective Hercule Poirot is nearing a holiday break from work when he receives another. He travels on the Orient Express, a train headed from Istanbul to France, with several passengers. At one point along the route, the train is derailed and one of the passengers is murdered. Only Poirot can find out who did it.

Despite normally starting with the cast, I will provide a brief backstory for those who might not be familiar enough with the plot on this one. This is based on a famous novel by Agatha Christie, and one of many stories following the cases of Hercule Poirot. It was also adapted several times before, so this is just the latest version of it.

What Worked: The cast is one of the biggest positives. First, there is Kenneth Branagh (who also directed this version) as Hercule Poirot himself, and he is great here. The passengers are played by Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Josh Gad (Disney's Frozen, 2017's Beauty and the Beast), Derek Jacobi, Leslie Odom, Jr., Michelle Pfeiffer, and Daisy Ridley (Rey from Star Wars*). This being an ensemble piece, one might think there would be an imbalance in screen time, and therefore, character development. Actually, everyone gets just enough of both here, and their performances are also really good.

The cinematography is excellent in this. There are two shots in particular that stand out. The first is when Poirot is being led to his cabin, which appears to be a tracking shot. The camera is outside the train, but it follows him from when he gets on to when he gets there without breaking away to focus on another character. The second shot is when the victim is being examined, and the camera is above them.

With this being a mystery/crime thriller, there are a fair amount of twists and turns. They keep the plot going, and keep you interested.

What Didn't Work: There are a couple problems here. The first is the resolution of the mystery; how it happens is surprising, yet somewhat predictable, which is the best way I can put it without even implying it. Either way, you'll be half-right.

The other problem is the pacing. Some may find it slow on occasion, especially those who are used to faster-paced movies. Here, it's more about buildup; sometimes, a slow pace is one of the things that's needed in order for the mystery to be effective.

While not an issue I had, some may also find the ending slightly abrupt.

Overall: Murder on the Orient Express is a very good mystery movie. It has great performances and cinematography that get the audience's attention. The amount of characters will have them guessing throughout. While some may find the ending abrupt, others may be interested enough to where they want to see more with Poirot. That leads to the best way to experience it: watch it with at least one person who has read the stories and one who hasn't, but may at least be familiar with them, so you view it from different perspectives.

*I plan to cover Star Wars (including The Last Jedi), by the way, but considering the series starting with the next review, I might not be able to get to it immediately.

Thoughts on Atomic Blonde (2017)

Image courtesy of wallpapercave.com

After seeing War for the Planet of the Apes, the next new release was Dunkirk. However, for now, I have decided to postpone that one, as I do not think I have enough material to properly cover it yet, so it may require a second viewing. Despite that, I do think I have enough to cover the one following that, which was Atomic Blonde.

The story is set in 1989, shortly before the fall of the Berlin Wall. MI6 agent Lorraine Broughton is sent in to recover a watch that contains the List, a microfilm with the names of all agents in the Soviet Union. She also has to find an agent codenamed "Satchel," who murdered the MI6 operative protecting it, and eliminate him. Considering both MI6 and the KGB are after it, Lorraine needs to figure out who to trust.

What Worked: The plot, while not original, is still interesting because of two things. The first is a difference in protagonist, and the second is that the movie around it this time is a period piece, where it takes place around an event that actually did happen. Those two things are what make the plot interesting. The cast and the technical aspects are what keep it interesting.

For the cast, there are several actors to discuss here. First is Charlize Theron as Lorraine, a high-ranking MI6 agent. She shows that her character is tough, committed to the mission, and capable of holding her own, especially in a fight. The other main actor in the movie is James McAvoy as David Percival, a station chief in Berlin who is tasked with helping her. He's eccentric to where he's actually hilarious. For that reason alone, he's the best character in the movie. There is some humor here, most of which comes from him.

The rest of the cast includes John Goodman as a CIA agent, Toby Jones as Lorraine's superior at MI6, Sofia Boutella as a French agent who Lorraine meets at one point, and Eddie Marsan as a character codenamed "Spyglass," who originally had the List. They are all really good in the movie, and their characters each have a purpose in the story. There's even a moment with John Goodman's character that's hilarious; it's something Lorraine says in the beginning, and it comes back around at the end.

Aside from Charlize Theron, the two biggest stars of the movie come from behind the scenes: director David Leitch and the soundtrack. David Leitch is a stuntman whose directorial debut came with the original John Wick. His experience and direction both show he's capable of handling action sequences. There is one sequence in particular that stands out: a scene in an apartment that results in a car chase. Watch closely during that one because it looks like it's all one take. There might have been some cuts, but they are so cleverly masked it's hard to tell whether or not there are any.

For those who remember when I covered Baby Driver, I said that even the soundtrack was a character in that movie. To an extent, it is here as well, but mostly because the songs were both from the 80s and used to make the setting feel like the 80s. Despite this soundtrack not being used as brilliantly as the one in Baby Driver was, it's still a great one, and it's the second best soundtrack of the year.

What Didn't Work: The plot centering around a list of every agent has been used before. Another problem is with the reveal of who "Satchel" is. It's narrowed down to two characters, with one of them somewhat implying themselves. While clever in execution since it is surprising, it is also somewhat predictable. Both of these issues could be attributed to the writing, although I thought it was fine. A minor problem is with the pacing. Its inconsistencies are occasional, but noticeable.

Overall: Atomic Blonde may not quite reinvent the spy genre, but it does bring a few new things to the table, particularly a female protagonist. While it does have some similarities to John Wick with the action and James Bond with certain other aspects, aside from that, it's completely different. The plot may not be original, but that might have been the best way to go about introducing Lorraine Broughton, should there be plans for a potential franchise: use something familiar, and then something new. Even with its share of problems, there's still more to enjoy here. Atomic Blonde is not a perfect spy movie, but it is a lot of fun.

Thoughts on War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

Image courtesy of hdqwalls.com

In the intro for the previous post, which focused on Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, I briefly mentioned that I decided to prepare for the latest installment. Much like the previous two movies themselves, the previous two posts that covered them have been building up to this. Here are my thoughts on War for the Planet of the Apes.

The story picks up two years after the events of Dawn, with Caesar and his followers being hunted by a military group called Alpha-Omega, led by a Colonel determined to ensure humanity’s survival. The conflict escalates when the Colonel makes Caesar vulnerable, and Caesar wants to go after him, yet the Colonel is not his only problem. His intention of achieving peace between both humans and apes persists, but his past may come back to haunt him.

What Worked: The first cast member worth talking about is actually an up-and-comer, named Amiah Miller. She portrays Nova, a little girl who is befriended and looked after by Maurice. She is also mute due to a side effect of the Simian Flu (which has evolved by this point), and has a connection to a character from the original movies. As for her performance, she is excellent here, especially considering she has to rely more on her actions anyway.

The other human actor is perhaps the most well known one, and that is Woody Harrelson as the Colonel. Much like Dreyfus in the previous movie, his motivation is understandable. The main difference is Dreyfus wasn't necessarily a villain in that one, but the Colonel absolutely is here. This is also the first time where the main human character is actually an antagonist, and Caesar might have met his match with him. They have the same motivations with differing ideologies to go along with them. The Colonel is such a great villain that he might at least tie with Koba as the best villain of the trilogy, and it may take more thought to decide whether or not he managed to top him. That even applies to Woody Harrelson's performance when compared to that of Toby Kebbell as Koba.

As for the apes, the one actor aside from Andy Serkis who can be discussed without delving too much into spoilers is Steve Zahn as another new character: the comic relief known as "Bad Ape." There are some humorous moments with him, but they are at the level of "just enough"; the humor balances out with the tone. The placements of those moments in the story make sense, and because of that, Bad Ape is hilarious. He has an interesting backstory, and he's actually useful when the situation calls for it. He's one of the best characters in the movie because he's a great example of comic relief characters done right.

For the technical aspects, they will be discussed like in the previous post because it's basically the same case here. The story picks up some time after the events of the previous movie (except two years instead of ten). Despite that shorter timespan between movies, it works because it provides a sense of urgency in that there is very little downtime here. The story of the franchise itself has been expanded upon even further, like with the mention of the Simian Flu's evolution. The characters are developed to where even the new ones are interesting. The returning ones have satisfying conclusions to their stories, if this is indeed the final movie.

The apes may have looked good in Rise and great in Dawn, but here, they look flawless, especially Caesar. The effects are the best of the year. The performance by Andy Serkis is certainly a contender for best leading actor. Much like with Dawn, his performance, the effects, and the advancement in the story show that Caesar has grown from a rebel in Rise to a warrior in Dawn into a hardened leader here.

The direction and cinematography also make this movie somehow manage to be the best in the series, just when it might not have been possible to top the second one. With the cinematography in particular, there is a sense of scale due to how gorgeous it is.

Overall: War for the Planet of the Apes is a perfect example of a third installment that does everything right. It takes everything that made the first two movies work, and improves upon it in a way that tops them. As stated in the post on Rise, this series gets better with each installment. In fact, watching them all together makes it feel like one story, which allows the viewer to appreciate them that much more. It culminates in an ending that will leave them in shock and awe at how perfect it is. Simply put, there are no flaws with this one. War for the Planet of the Apes (as of right now) is the best movie of 2017, and despite being a fan, I am unsure if Star Wars: The Last Jedi can top it.

Thoughts on Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

Since War for the Planet of the Apes was the next new release, I decided to watch the previous movies. Having covered the first movie, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, here are my thoughts on Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

The story picks up ten years after the events of Rise, where the human population has been greatly reduced by the Simian Flu pandemic. Only 1 out of every 500 is immune to it. Meanwhile, the apes have begun setting up a society of their own, with Caesar leading a colony near San Francisco. However, their society happens to have a dam within it that the humans want to work on in order to bring power to the city. The apes will stand their ground if they have to, but do not want to resort to violence. They allow the humans through, something Caesar's lieutenant Koba does not take too kindly to, considering what humans had done to him. This culminates in a battle only one species can win.

What Worked: In regards to the cast, there are four noteworthy human characters. First is Jason Clarke as Malcolm, who leads the group sent on behalf of the survivors. Much like James Franco's character Will from the first movie, he's very compassionate and wants to help the apes in addition to his family. As the movie progresses, he also gets to know Caesar. Then there's Malcolm's wife, Ellie, played by Keri Russell. She's like Freida Pinto's character Caroline from Rise, but she's given more to do. There's also Malcolm's son Alexander, played by Kodi Smit-McPhee. He, too, is really good, especially in one particular scene that will be mentioned later. These three are the human characters to get invested in, because they're likable, and throughout the movie, they prove to Caesar and the apes that not all humans are bad.

The other human character worth mentioning is Dreyfus (Gary Oldman), who leads the survivors. He is hesitant in sending Malcolm's group out because he doesn't trust the apes. He's not necessarily a villain, nor is he entirely likable, but where he's coming from is still understandable. Out of all of the characters Gary Oldman has portrayed, Dreyfus is one of his more underrated ones; he's excellent in this.

Like the humans, there are at least two actors on the apes' side other than Andy Serkis as Caesar that might not be big names, but at least familiar to some. For example, Judy Greer (Cheryl from Archer) is in this as Caesar's wife, Cornelia. She's not in the movie that much; Cornelia was also a character in the first one, but she's an extended cameo even if she's more established here. The other actor also portrays a character from the first movie, and that is Toby Kebbell as Koba. Aside from Caesar and Maurice, he's the best character in the movie. There's something he does that easily makes him the trilogy's best villain. It provides even more reason to root for Caesar.

As for the technical aspects, the performance by Andy Serkis goes hand-in-hand with at least a couple of them. First, there's the story, which picks up some time after the events of the previous movie, as stated earlier. However, the script expands upon the story of the first movie in general as well as those of the characters. Even when there's downtime instead of action, some of those moments help develop them. An excellent example is a scene with Alexander interacting with Maurice. They both learn something about each other, and Maurice begins to understand that they want to help. This is one of the best scenes in the movie because of how both characters are developed in one scene and how peaceful it is. It also provides some emotion.

Not only has the development of the characters grown since Rise, but also the effects. This is especially true of Caesar and the performance by Andy Serkis. Even through the motion-capture technology, the viewer won't just see an actor portraying a character; they will see that character. This is something that he is known for. His performance, the effects, and the story all convey one thing: that Caesar has grown from a rebel into a warrior.

What Didn't Work: The main minor issue is with pacing. This is not a major problem, though, because there are none with this one, either.

Overall: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a fantastic sequel. It is right up there with sequels such as The Empire Strikes Back, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, or even The Dark Knight (just to name a few). In fact, as I said in my overall thoughts on Rise of the Planet of the Apes, that felt like the Batman Begins of this franchise. If that's the case, this is The Dark Knight.

Side Note: Keep the finale in mind, and listen closely for something at the very end of the credits. It may hint at something. If I go any further into it, it might be reaching spoiler territory, and I prefer to get my thoughts out with as few spoilers as possible (and mild ones at that).

Thoughts on Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

This will be the first time I cover each installment in a certain franchise consecutively. The subject of this series will be the Planet of the Apes reboot trilogy, which started with Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

The story follows scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) attempting to find a cure for Alzheimer's, as his father Charles (John Lithgow) suffers from it. The company he works for is conducting tests on chimps. While their drug does lead to increased intelligence, one chimp in particular named Bright Eyes goes crazy during a presentation of the drug. It is later discovered that she was trying to protect her newborn baby, who Will brings home and raises. The chimp, named Caesar, has inherited his mother's intellect, which ultimately becomes an advantage after an unfortunate incident lands him in a shelter with other apes. However, in seeing the cruelty they have suffered, he decides to lead a rebellion against humanity.

What Worked: While I usually cover the cast first, I will save the best for last in regards to that. Ironically, the humans have more well known actors on their side than the apes do, despite the movie focusing on them. Even though Caesar is the character to get invested in both on the apes’ side and throughout the movie, there has to be a balance, and Will provides it. He not only wants to cure his father and everyone else afflicted with Alzheimer’s, but he also knows the potential consequences of what he’s doing, and does what he can to help Caesar in addition to his father. He becomes very sympathetic, and shows that he’s a good man with good intentions. Through his performance, James Franco conveys all of that and even great chemistry between Will and Caesar. John Lithgow is also really good as Charles, although he’s not in the movie that much.

Another sympathetic character aside from Will and Caesar is Caroline, played by Freida Pinto. There are two characters here who address the consequences with Will; she's the good one, in that she is compassionate in doing so while also questioning the ethical side of what he's doing, particularly concerning Caesar. Much like James Franco, it shows in her performance.

Whereas Caroline is the good character who addresses the consequences with Will, the bad one is his boss, Jacobs. He cares about what's best for the company, but for the sake of money more so than his employees, and can be considered the antagonist because of that. A secondary antagonist is a caretaker at the shelter Caesar is placed in. His actions make him one of three catalysts for the apes' rebellion.

The humans may have more well known actors on their side, but the apes have more memorable characters on theirs. There's another chimp named Rocket, a gorilla named Buck, a bonobo named Koba (keep him in mind for later), an orangutan named Maurice, and of course Caesar himself. The best characters in the movie aside from Caesar are Maurice and Buck, the latter of whom gets a big moment during the finale. Maurice is another ape you get interested in besides Caesar. He befriends him and becomes very close to him throughout both this movie and the trilogy as a whole.

However, the standout character is Caesar himself, and Andy Serkis is the main reason why. He put motion-capture performances on the map with Gollum in The Lord of the Rings, King Kong in Peter Jackson's remake, and even more so with Caesar here. His performance alone gives enough reason to root for him.

In regards to the technical aspects, the script, the editing, and the effects are most noteworthy. The script gives the characters equal and proper development. For fans of the original movies, there are plenty of references here. One in particular involves Caesar, and it's very satisfying. If the performance by Andy Serkis isn't enough of a reason to root for Caesar, that one reference certainly is. The editing makes the movie very well paced.

The effects may evolve throughout the sequels, but the work on display here should be given credit because the apes start out looking and feeling like real apes, and they look more and more seamless as the trilogy progresses.

Also worth noting is the score. Similar to Prometheus, it has its own way of standing out: it has a certain track throughout, which could be considered the theme.

What Didn't Work: These are more of nitpicks than actual negatives. While the direction and cinematography are still really good, they stand out more in the sequels. There are also characters that the audience may not get to know all that well here, but they get further development later. Aside from those nitpicks, there are no major problems.

Overall: Rise of the Planet of the Apes is an excellent example, like Batman Begins, of how a reboot can actually be really good. It even feels like the Batman Begins of this particular franchise, because much like that, it provides a foundation for something special: another great trilogy that gets better with each installment. Here, there's more than just that: it has likable characters on both sides of an eventual conflict, amazing story progression and pacing, and of course some fan service as a bonus. It serves as another landmark for advancement in effects that also get better with each installment, as well as a great starting point for anyone interested in checking the series out.

Side Note: Stay through the credits. There's a mid-credits scene, and then it shows the aftermath of that. All I'll say is this: a caretaker serves as one of the three catalysts for the apes' rebellion. The main one is in that scene, and it's a result of something that happened earlier in the movie.

Thoughts on Baby Driver (2017)

Image courtesy of hdwallpapers.in

The next movie I saw was something truly unique: an original action comedy that even makes the soundtrack a character. It comes from Edgar Wright, director of such films as Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, and The World's End. This post will focus on his latest film, Baby Driver.

The story follows a getaway driver named Baby, who, as a child, lost his parents in a car accident that also gave him tinnitus. However, he blocks it out by listening to music, which allows him to stay focused during a job. He works for Doc, a crime boss who plans the heists and gets the crew together. When Baby thinks he is free and capable of having a new life, Doc wants him to do one last job. Unfortunately, the crew he's given may have an agenda of their own.

What Worked: To start, this movie has an amazing plot. It's a very clever and ultimately well-executed idea, and as a result, it has a great cast surrounding it, who all give great performances. Ansel Elgort portrays Baby, and his performance is one of the things that make him an interesting character to get behind. He sells Baby's commitment to his work, his focus when he's driving, etc. Then there's Kevin Spacey as Doc. Out of the supporting cast, he's one of the best characters in the movie. He also gets one of the funniest lines. On the other side of the conflict is Debora, a waitress and Baby's love interest, played by Lily James. They have great chemistry together. There are several other big names in this aside from Kevin Spacey, all as various crewmembers; these include Jon Hamm and Jamie Foxx.

The rest of the positives involve the technical aspects. First, Edgar Wright's script is brilliant. One particular moment that's so cleverly written is actually in the trailer (it involves masks), and the setup for it in the movie makes it even better. Aside from hilarious moments like that, another thing that makes the script work is how the majority of the characters are established, especially Baby himself. The performance by Ansel Elgort may be one of the things that make Baby interesting; how he's handled is the other, which allows for development through his actions as well. It's done in a similar way with Doc. With the crew, Debora, and other supporting characters, it's also through personality since it is more noticeable with them; Baby and Doc don't really show it that much.

With those characteristics incorporated into Edgar Wright's script and put on display through his direction, it's easy to notice his style of filmmaking and humor. If not that, then it will definitely show in the perfectly timed editing, especially with the action sequences and the music.

The editing of the action sequences makes them even more fun to watch. It shows what's happening and how, thus keeping the viewer's interest, but not just because of the editing.

As stated in the intro, even the soundtrack is a character here. Because of how it's utilized alone, this is the best soundtrack of 2017. For example, on occasion, the action is timed to the music, and it's done very well. This also has one of the cleverest choices for a credits song in recent memory.

Overall: Those who have been clamoring for a great comedy might just get that with Baby Driver. It's also a solid heist movie, with interesting characters, clever dialogue and humor, and amazing action, along with an intriguing plot, great performances, and an excellent soundtrack. This movie ended up being one of the most fun theater experiences, and is easily among the best movies of 2017. It's even more surprising to go into it not knowing what to expect.

Thoughts on Predator (1987)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

After seeing The Mummy, I revisited another classic. Like Airplane!, this one came from the 80s. Like The Mummy, it’s also a creature feature. It’s one of the best action movies ever made, and one of my favorite movies period. Since 2017 marks the 30th Anniversary, and it gets another sequel in 2018, this post will be on Predator.

The story follows a rescue team sent into the Central American jungle to recover hostages from a guerrilla camp. Though they eventually discover the mission was a setup, they decide to continue to the extraction point, bringing a female guerrilla with them. The team slowly comes to realize that they are not alone, as they are being hunted down one at a time by something they cannot see.

What Worked: Much like the post on Airplane!, this one can be considered a retrospective. In saying this is a creature feature, those who haven’t seen it may think it’s a horror movie, especially a slasher movie. The plot may sound like one for a slasher movie, but it works well for an action movie. It’s very simple, and it kicks in right from the opening. The Predator’s ship lands, then it goes immediately into introducing the team and their mission, and then the conflict starts when they arrive: the team discovers that there was another before them (which is addressed at least once in the trailer, so it's not a huge spoiler).

Speaking of the team, the next positive is the cast. It’s hard not to start with the best character here: the leader, Major Alan “Dutch” Schaefer, portrayed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Dutch shows that he is a great team leader because he is determined to get the job done, even with the odds stacked against him. This in turn makes him a great character, and Arnold’s performance is excellent.

Despite the fact that Dutch is the team leader, he has to contend with having his old friend Dillon supervising them. Dillon is played by Carl Weathers, who was already known for his role as Apollo Creed in the Rocky franchise prior to this. With Dillon, he not only gives a great performance, but he brings a stern personality to him. Even though the team doesn’t like being supervised, he doesn’t care.

The other team members are Mac, Blain, Billy, Poncho, and Hawkins. Mac is the medic, Blain the weapons expert, Billy the tracker, Poncho the demolitions expert, and Hawkins is the operator. Bill Duke, reteaming with Arnold after Commando, portrays Mac. While his character in that film, Cooke, is enjoyable, he isn't given that much to do. Mac is more developed to where he's like Dillon in personality, but later on in the movie, he shows some sensitivity. As a result, he gets several good moments, including one line early on that comes up again later. Blain (former professional wrestler Jesse Ventura) is another great character. He's probably the most like the "tough guy" type aside from Dutch, going so far as nicknaming his minigun "Ol' Painless." He doesn't even let getting hit faze him, as is pointed out in one of the many quotable lines here.

Someone who has perhaps the most memorable moment out of all of them is Billy, played by Sonny Landham, in what would become his best-known role. He's a character that you can definitely latch onto, and when he gets his moment, not only is it surprising when it happens, it's also surprising how it happens. Some may have a problem with the latter, but it's actually more suspenseful. Poncho (Richard Chaves) also gets one. His comes out of nowhere, though, which makes it even more effective.

Hawkins is the comic relief to an extent, having a couple of hilarious moments between him and Billy. The second one in particular is great because Billy even acknowledges it, which should be kept in mind for later. After that one, there's not enough of Hawkins, but there's a reason for it. It's worth noting that Shane Black, the actor who plays him, is actually going full circle: he's going from playing a character in this movie to directing the new one.

There are two other characters to talk about: the female guerrilla and the Predator itself. The female guerrilla, named Anna, has her own unique development. During one scene of downtime in the middle, she reveals that she is familiar with the Predator. She even addresses a possible weakness, which leads to another quotable line.

The Predator is one of the best sci-fi villains. It has an intimidating design and interesting technology. It may not have much in the way of weapons (shoulder-mounted plasma caster, wrist blades), but later films, including the crossovers with Alien, would resolve that. Here, it really only relies on its weapons when necessary. Otherwise, it taunts its prey by using their own voices against them while tracking them through thermal sensors. On top of that, it can also cloak. It has its own voice, which is mostly a mix between a clicking sound and a growl.

The rest of the positives consist of the effects, the action, the direction, the script, and the score. I will mention the actors who brought the Predator to life here because it's more of a physical performance with someone else providing the voice. With the physical performance, the intent was to make the Predator seem bigger than its prey. It works with the actor they ultimately had: Kevin Peter Hall, who, at 7'2", was often chosen for monsters because of his height anyway. In addition to portraying the Predator, he also makes a cameo. The voice was done by Peter Cullen, best known as the voice of Optimus Prime. The combination of his work with Hall's physicality is perfect, and it doesn't even feel like two performances combined into one character.

The Predator also became iconic because of its design, created by special effects legend Stan Winston. His work here was ultimately nominated for an Oscar, after winning one prior for Aliens. Since they are that amazing, the effects still hold up, and even though most of them involved computers, it's hard to tell while watching the movie.

The action sequences are memorable as well. They are filled with perfectly built-up suspense, and it's clear what's going on. This is something that director John McTiernan excels at, and it's also benefitted by the script, which would be proven even further in his follow-up: another action classic called Die Hard. With Predator, the script doesn't just work because of quotable lines. It develops the characters to where they feel like a team, and the lines become quotable because you care about them. It also provides suspense through not only the action, but throughout the rest of the movie, allowing you to fear for them as well. The suspense is elevated by the brilliant score from Alan Silvestri, who had achieved prior success with Back to the Future. Two of his movie themes are among my favorites; the main theme to Predator is one of them.

However, the score is not the only music, as Little Richard's "Long Tall Sally" comes up in the beginning, and is referenced later. This movie is so good even that would come back into the franchise at one point.

Overall: Predator is a prime example of an action classic. It has a great cast of characters, a villain so amazing it has a well-deserved franchise, effects that hold up, quotable lines, one of the best themes ever, and a plot so simple even the trailer can summarize it*. It gets better with every viewing, and it shows that action movies can be fun. For those who haven't seen it, "get to the chopper" and go watch it. In fact, as implied in the intro, now would be a perfect time to do so.

*It even has an amazing trailer; look it up on YouTube, and look at the first one you see. Watch the movie first, though, so you won't have to deal with potential spoilers.

Thoughts on The Mummy (2017)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

The movie being covered here is the latest attempt to jump on the "Shared Universe" bandwagon. However, it has a very respectable purpose behind it: bring a series of classic monster movies to a new generation. Here, I will be covering the reboot of The Mummy, the first installment in what has been dubbed the "Dark Universe."

The story of this version follows a new Mummy, Princess Ahmanet, who almost inherits rule over Egypt from her father when he has a son. After making a deal with the god Set and murdering her family, she tries to get him a body, but she is caught and condemned to eternal mummification. She is then taken to Mesopotamia and buried to ensure she never escapes. In present-day, two Army soldiers, Sergeant Nick Morton and Corporal Chris Vail, along with archaeologist Jenny Halsey, find her tomb. Sure enough, they awaken Ahmanet from her ancient prison, and unleash her wrath upon the world.

What Worked: With the cast, the main selling point is Tom Cruise, who portrays Nick. In regards to his performance, he is at least decent here. He does have some charisma, but not as much as in some of his other roles. The other two main characters are Jake Johnson as Nick's friend Chris and Annabelle Wallis as Jenny, both of whom also give decent performances. However, with Jenny, she is given an interesting bit of development later on in the movie; going any further would be a huge spoiler.

There were two standouts: Russell Crowe and Sofia Boutella. With Russell Crowe, his character is perhaps the most interesting one in the movie, and his performance is really good as well. Those who know their monsters will be surprised at his character. Sofia Boutella gives the best performance in the movie as Princess Ahmanet. She is great as the new Mummy, and the fact that she looks menacing helps.

As for the rest of the positives, the effects work looks really frightening, which can be attributed to the production design. The tone was consistent for the most part. The moments of tension and suspense were very effective. The scene that's most memorable in that aspect is the plane crash scene, parts of which were in the trailer. It's even more tense in the movie, and the fact that Tom Cruise is still capable of doing his own stunts definitely contributes to that. The moments of suspense come mostly whenever Ahmanet attacks, and there are some creepy parts to those scenes.

There are a couple bonuses here: for those who have a certain nostalgia for the 1999 version with Brendan Fraser, there is a reference to it in a scene with Russell Crowe. The other bonus is the references to other monsters. Even with this movie's problems, there is room for improvement, so it will be interesting to see how future installments in the Dark Universe pan out.

What Didn't Work: Though some of the cast give decent performances, their characters are not that memorable. For example, Jenny is mostly the "damsel in distress" type of character. Aside from the interesting bit of development later on, the only other thing revealed about her is a history with Nick. That issue, along with the tone and story structure, can be attributed to the script, where the inconsistencies show. The tone changed a couple times, and it felt slightly jarring when it did.

The biggest issue is an inconsistency with the story structure. At first, it feels like its own story, but then from the introduction of Russell Crowe's character onward, it focuses more on setting up future installments. Therefore, this movie's entire purpose is more front and center at that point than the story already in progress. It's made obvious that Universal is trying to respond to Marvel and create a shared universe to bring their monsters to a new generation, and that I respect. It's understandable how they would want their own version of that franchise and found the easiest way to do it.

However, it does not help that their intention is shown or told rather than implied. The most glaring example is the references to other monsters because they not only do that, but are also the main reason for the structure issue. While it may feel like an attempt to provide something new, it doesn't have the novelty feel to it. This may also come across as a remake of the 1999 version with elements similar to that, despite some tweaks here and there.

Overall: The Mummy is not nearly as bad as it has been made out to be. While some remakes/reboots may be considered unnecessary, this is not one of them because of the intention behind it: take a classic franchise and modernize it for new audiences. It's just that not everything worked out the way the studio hoped, but there is room for improvement. In fact, if it had a more reasonable budget and a better team behind it, it could have been something really good. As it is, it's a decent effort at starting a franchise, and I am interested to see where said franchise goes.

Thoughts on Airplane! (1980)

Image courtesy of fanart.tv

The night after watching The Accountant, the next movie I watched was a classic spoof comedy known as Airplane!. It particularly parodies older disaster movies, so this was still a few years before directors like Roland Emmerich came along and popularized the genre with films like Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow.

The story of Airplane! follows Ted Striker, a former fighter pilot from an event simply referred to as "The War" (it's never specified as to which one). This event traumatized him to where he's afraid to fly ever again. His problems only get worse as he can't keep a job and Elaine Dickinson, his girlfriend from during the War and now a flight attendant, leaves him. Hoping to get her back, he boards the flight she happens to be on. Unfortunately, many passengers on board, as well as the pilots, become ill after dinner, and it's up to Ted to conquer his fear and save the day.

Something readers may be shocked to hear: this is the first post without a "What Didn't Work" section, because there's simply nothing wrong with this at all. It's difficult to find any flaws here. This may also be more of a retrospective.

What Worked: The two biggest positives with Airplane! are the cast and the script. With the cast, there's Robert Hays as Ted Striker, who delivers his lines in a deadpan manner, something another actor in this excelled at. It's easy to tell he's having fun portraying his character, but so committed to playing it straight at the same time that showing it would be too obvious. This is perhaps Hays's most iconic role in regards to film, as he would parody it later.

In addition to him, there's Julie Hagerty as Elaine, a naive flight attendant who seems completely oblivious to everything around her, a character trait that would be present in other roles. Someone else who often had a common character type is Robert Stack as Striker's former commanding officer Rex Kramer, with whom Striker does not have the best relationship. Unlike the two aforementioned actors, who would go on to parody their roles here, it's actually the other way around with him. He was known for portraying the "tough guy" type of character prior to starring in this movie, and then he parodies it.

Some of the supporting cast receive a few of the best lines. Examples include Peter Graves as the pilot, Lloyd Bridges as the control tower supervisor, and Stephen Stucker as the air traffic controller Johnny. The best character in the movie is Dr. Rumack, portrayed by the great Leslie Nielsen. Like Julie Hagerty, his character is completely oblivious to the scenario surrounding him, except he doesn't show it. While Robert Hays's approach to deadpan comedy is really good, Leslie Nielsen is a prime example of someone who perfected it. This is also evident through his portrayal of Lt. Frank Drebin in the Naked Gun films.

The other reason Airplane! is such a classic comedy is also why it's a good example of a parody film done right: the script. It works because it knows what the intent is: simply make fun of that era's disaster movies. Like more recent parody films, there are some references. However, they are used sparingly, make sense within a larger context, and allow the audience to figure them out. Plus, they don't feel dated. There are also clever types of humor, like visual gags, puns, and slapstick done right. The fact that the dialogue consists of what would ultimately become quotable lines is a bonus. If the characters are memorable, their dialogue may also be. This even applies to a few cameos here.

Overall: Airplane! does everything right. It has a simple purpose that makes the plot easy to follow. It has a great cast of characters, well developed through clever writing. It has numerous memorable moments with either perfectly used references, brilliant wordplay, or quotable lines. For those concerned that the parody genre is dead, there just haven't been any newer ones that are actually good yet. All that's needed is a team of people who know a certain genre well enough to understand a proper approach to parodying it. Airplane! is one such example. I guarantee that there will not be one moment where you're not laughing.

Thoughts on The Accountant (2016)

Image courtesy of tokkoro.com

The weekend after seeing Alien: Covenant, I was able to experience one of 2016's biggest surprises for the first time since seeing it in theaters, and that is an action-thriller called The Accountant.

The story follows Christian Wolff, an accountant who also discreetly uncovers financial misdeeds, usually for criminal and terrorist clients. While investigating a robotics company, he has to deal with people who could prevent him from discovering the truth, from the federal authorities already after him to numerous killers to a hitman with personal ties... and his own team of mercenaries.

Now for my thoughts:

What Worked: The Accountant has a lot to enjoy about it. Considering the movie has quite the cast behind it, I will start with that. Ben Affleck is excellent as Christian. His character is not only interesting because of his backstory, but also the traits that make his backstory interesting. He may be skilled with numbers and weapons, but he is also proficient in hand-to-hand combat. He may be stoic and not quite a people person, but there’s a reason behind him showing it: he is very focused on his work, and he has a certain vulnerability to him that affects it.

As for the rest of the cast, there are two characters that are perhaps the most interesting aside from Christian himself. The first is the hitman, portrayed by Jon Bernthal. His character not only serves as a great opponent to Christian, but he is also intimidating. He plays “tough guy” characters really well, if his character here is any indication. The other character is the director of FinCEN (the Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network), portrayed by J.K. Simmons. He is great at playing the “commanding” type of character, as evidenced by his performance as J. Jonah Jameson in the original Spider-Man trilogy.

The last two characters that can be fully described within the positives are the accountant for the robotics company and the CEO, played respectively by Anna Kendrick and John Lithgow. Anna Kendrick, who usually plays characters with a sense of quirkiness, shows more curiosity here, wanting to learn more about Christian and what makes him tick. Without spoiling anything, there are consequences that come with that. With John Lithgow, his character seems to be going against a particular Hollywood stereotype: the CEO who usually cares more about his power and his money than his employees, company morale, and maybe even his relationships outside of that. It is more like the other way around with him; he shows that he does care more about the company's problems, as well as his employees.

Other aspects to enjoy here are the action and several twists. In regards to the action, it can be brutal at times, but if you've seen movies like The Equalizer starring Denzel Washington (which is probably the one it'll remind you of the most, if anything) or even the John Wick films, then you should be fine. The twists are also effective.

What Didn’t Work: There are a couple of characters not previously mentioned. Although they are still important to the story in their own way, at times, you're so invested in some of the other characters that you may even forget about them.

Also, how you may feel about the twists depends on perspective. Most may find them effective, with some finding them obvious as well. Others may find them obvious and nothing else.

Overall: The Accountant as a whole is a lot of fun. It's not a perfect action-thriller, but it definitely is one of the better ones out there, as well as an underrated one. There are two huge comparisons that can be made to John Wick. One is that the story, the characters and the action are more the main focus here than the technical aspects, as good as those are. The other, and biggest, comparison is that both have franchise potential. Evidenced by its sequel, John Wick is starting to live up to it. With The Accountant, it will be interesting to see where it goes from here. It, too, is getting a sequel, so it might not be long before the answer is given.

Thoughts on Alien: Covenant (2017)

Image courtesy of wall.alphacoders.com

As stated in the previous post, where I covered Prometheus, I re-watched it to prepare for Alien: Covenant. Now I will give my (albeit extremely belated) thoughts on it.

Along with Prometheus, go into Alien: Covenant knowing the overall consensus is quite polarizing. Starting with the plot summary, there will be very mild spoilers.

The story of Alien: Covenant takes place 10 years after the events of Prometheus. During a voyage to a remote planet in the hopes of colonizing it, disaster strikes the crew of the Covenant. Following that, they discover another planet close by and instead head there. Of course, things are not what they seem.

My thoughts?

What Worked: Some of what worked about Prometheus applies here as well. The production design and cinematography are great, especially the latter. The effects are really good, particularly the new Alien type introduced: the Neomorph, which stands out because of its introduction alone. The Xenomorph, the signature creature of the franchise, also shows up near the third act.

A surprising approach to the crew's dynamic is that they are made up entirely of couples. Despite knowing that a majority of them are going to die, you still feel a sense of dread for them. There are three standout performances: Katherine Waterston as Daniels, Danny McBride as Tennessee, and Michael Fassbender as Walter. With Daniels, comparisons to Ellen Ripley are understandable, but as a character on her own, she's still interesting. Danny McBride, usually known for comedies, is actually great in a serious role like Tennessee. Michael Fassbender is excellent as Walter, but his performance doesn't stop there.

Some references to Prometheus are present here. There are two particular ones that do not go into heavy spoiler territory. The first is that the theme to Prometheus comes up at least once. The second is that some of the events are addressed as well, and thus some questions are answered here.

An improvement is where the tension starts. In Prometheus, it starts as soon as the ship lands on the planet. Here, it starts even before the other planet is discovered. It begins in the first ten minutes with the disaster sequence, and how it plays out is something surprising.

What Didn't Work: The direction and score, while good, don't stand out as much as they did in Prometheus. This unfortunately means that the sense of scale conveyed through basically all of that movie's technical aspects is pretty much absent here aside from the cinematography. There is an issue with the tension as well. While its start in the first ten minutes was effective, it resulted in not getting to know a certain character.

As for the biggest issue, this is yet another movie where characters make stupid decisions. However, at first, their possible consequences are actually addressed beforehand, like when they decide to head to the other planet. The outcomes are also predictable.

While not an issue for me, the ending is one of the things that make this movie so polarizing. Some may not see it coming, others may. It depends on perspective.

Overall: While Alien: Covenant is another solid entry in the franchise, like Prometheus, it has its fair share of problems. It feels like a reaction to Prometheus, where the filmmakers knew what the audience wanted and decided to provide it here. However, it also feels sadly ironic that this ended up being polarizing as well. Regardless of your thoughts on Prometheus, give this a chance, as they somewhat go hand-in-hand with each other.

Thoughts on Prometheus (2012)

Image courtesy of wallpapercave.com

The day after I saw King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, I re-watched Prometheus in preparation for its sequel, Alien: Covenant.

There will be two types of warnings for this one. The first is the obvious one concerning mild spoilers. The second is one that applies to Alien: Covenant as well. Before I get started, my warning is this: for both movies, go in knowing the overall consensus is quite polarizing.

The story starts in 2089 where archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway are in Scotland and find a star map. Later, onboard the Prometheus exploration vessel, they explain to the crew that the pictogram in the map is the same one as those in other maps from unrelated civilizations. Thus, they believe it is an invitation from our supposed creators, referred to as "Engineers." An expedition led by Shaw and Holloway is funded. Four years later, in December of 2093, they find a structure on a moon and begin exploring, unaware of what could possibly go wrong in searching for answers.

My thoughts?

What Worked: There are definitely more positives than negatives here. The first I will delve into is actually the production design, namely the looks of both the structure and the ship; the movie looks gorgeous. The cinematography and direction show a sense of scale, while the score helps convey it. The first track in the score may stand out the most since it comes up a few times, so it can be considered the theme.

Another contribution to the look and feel is through the effects. The majority of them are practical. Two examples used here are prosthetic makeup and the creature designs. The makeup is used primarily for another character that shows up briefly in the beginning and then in a key moment towards the third act. The creature designs look very terrifying and add to some intense scenes.

As for the performances, some noteworthy ones are Noomi Rapace (the original Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) as Shaw, Charlize Theron as mission director Meredith Vickers, and Idris Elba as Captain Janek. The standout here is Michael Fassbender as David because while you are interested to learn more about Shaw, you may feel more interested in him. Fassbender really sells it as a different type of crew member; fans of sci-fi and of the Alien franchise in particular will understand.

What Didn't Work: The biggest issue is that this is another movie where characters make stupid decisions. There are some obvious ones in the middle and at least one in the third act. This issue may come from the writing, which leads to an inconsistent tone. In the first two acts, it feels like a sci-fi horror movie. Then in the third act, it suddenly feels more like a thought-provoking sci-fi movie with a few horror elements in it.

Before I go into my overall thoughts, here is an advisory for those who may be interested. If you get scared easily, prepare yourself because there are at least four moments like that here: two startle scares and two genuine jump scares. Some of the more tense parts (including a storm scene, a surgery scene, and the ending) may affect you even more.

Overall: Prometheus is one of the better entries in the Alien franchise. While this is a prequel of sorts to the original Alien, don't expect all questions to be answered here. Don't expect a flat-out horror movie, either. It's more sci-fi, despite having its share of creepy moments. Even if you look at Prometheus on its own, it is still a very good movie. Whether you want to watch it prior to seeing Alien: Covenant or not is up to you, but doing it might help.